Square grooved forged irons??

[ezgoer]

I have a set of MacGregor JNP’s with square grooves. Just curious did the other big manufacturers of the day offer square grooved forged irons? Beyond the legalities of the day was square grooves a cast club invention? How far do they go back?

 Mine don’t have SG stamped in them like some did but have seen somewhere that the 3 rings on hozel indicates square grooves also. Appears to be plenty of JNP’s with only 2 rings. 

JNP 6 iron magnification of 10x

Here’s a Muirfield 20th 6 iron magnification of 10x for comparison. 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by ezgoer

[SnowbirdTom]

After playing my ‘71 Spalding Elite MV2s and shredding  a few ball covers yesterday, I cleaned them up well and they sure look square grooved to me!  I’ll be staying tuned to see others comments.

[Shallowface]

My first sand wedge back in the 70s was a forged Ram store line just like the one in the pictures.  Brand new for $2.99!

 

It looks like the grooves weren't square, but they sure were wide.  I could spin a Top Flite with it.

 

I know that because of this wedge I really didn't understand at first what the big deal was when the Ping controversy hit in the 80s.     

 

[Pepperturbo]

Square grooves seemed like a good idea at the time, for spin, but they shredded covers.  Years back I tested clubs with them, but never bought them, as I could and still do spin the ball plenty.  Titleist covers were ruined after one rd.

[ezgoer]

4 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Square grooves seemed like a good idea at the time, for spin, but they shredded covers.  Years back I tested clubs with them, but never bought them, as I could and still do spin the ball plenty.  Titleist covers were ruined after one rd.

Good point but in my experience it was the knock offs that were the worst at destroying covers. I haven’t gamed these JNP’s yet but in the winter I was using the 8 iron a lot in a simulator and it didn’t eat balls. Clearly 32 years has taken off a bit of the edges though.
 

 Don’t recall early EYE2’s really destroying either as long as they weren’t tinkered with. Remember something about PINGs final tumble process being more than others so soften up the edges?? Then the later U grooves had a rounded face surface edge so zero 90 degree edges. 
 
 There was countless EYE2 knockoffs that were the biggest culprits. If I remember right Tour Edition was a higher quality or more finished anyways version that didn’t destroy to bad. I had a set of EYE2 clones called HAWK that weren’t horrible. Remember a clone brand called Phoenix that was so bad you literally could get cut off them when they were brand new. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by ezgoer

[SteveNZ]

Some Hogan Apex Redlines had square grooves.

[ezgoer]

25 minutes ago, SteveNZ said:

Some Hogan Apex Redlines had square grooves.

To me that’s as good of news as could be!

[NRJyzr]

Square grooves in most everything was a response to Ping's Eye2 irons, that came with square grooves.  Prior to those, nothing was produced with the square grooves, they weren't even authorized by the ruling bodies until the late 70s, such as I remember reading.

 

The first Eye2 sets with square grooves *did* damage golf balls, until Ping added a step to radius the edges.  It's that process that caused the ruckus with the USGA over the grooves.  Which may be best left for a different thread.  😉

 

And, I feel like adding....   grooves don't cause spin.  They're there purely to channel debris away from ball/clubface contact.  Testing has shown that on a clean lie, a flat grooveless clubface will produce more spin than one with grooves.  /end soapbox   ( LOL )

 

[mat562]

Some late '80s Mizuno TP sets came with a mix of V grooves in the long and mid-irons and square grooves from the 7-iron down.

[bcstones]

2 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

And, I feel like adding....   grooves don't cause spin.  They're there purely to channel debris away from ball/clubface contact.  Testing has shown that on a clean lie, a flat grooveless clubface will produce more spin than one with grooves.  /end soapbox   ( LOL )

 

glad you said this...I've been thinking along those lines & posting them here. 
Back when the USGA finally disallowed the grandfathering of PingEye2's, I contacted the USGA, over a couple of days, & asked what the big deal was all about. They couldn't make up their minds what grooves were for - to create spin or to channel water/debris away. They got kinda testy & then refused to speak or text or email any longer 😂 after I brought up what Maltby said in his manual on clubmaking/repair. I didn't even get to ask what affect, if any, punch dot had 

 

Maltby said that spin was created by the loft of the club, not by grooves. He made a complete set of irons, 1 thru PW, grooveless & played them exclusively for 2 years. He said his handicap dropped from 6 to 5. 

 

End of my soapbox....🤣

Edited June 16, 2023 by bcstones

[Hickory4ever]

I respectfully have to disagree, grooves definitely contribute to spin on a golf ball. I play a multitude of golf clubs from various eras including the smoothies (smooth faced irons) from before 1900. Smoothies definitely have reduced spin compared to the later grooved hickory clubs using the same ball.

[bcstones]

17 hours ago, Hickory4ever said:

I respectfully have to disagree, grooves definitely contribute to spin on a golf ball. I play a multitude of golf clubs from various eras including the smoothies (smooth faced irons) from before 1900. Smoothies definitely have reduced spin compared to the later grooved hickory clubs using the same ball.

(chuckling here) No problem...however I wonder if perhaps those "smoothies from before 1900" might have a multitude of factors.

Maltby's 1st edition of his club design/fitting/repair was published in '74 & no mention of what I paraphrased, the 2d edition published in '82 does (it was in an appendix about some of the myths of club design). I'm guessing here, but it seems logical that Maltby probably designed & had his regular set of 'grooved' irons made to his specs, especially to lie & loft...so when he designed & had a 'grooveless" set made (some 7 -8 decades after the 19th century), it would be to those same specs...which would make a comparison more accurate.

But that's just a guess....I would love to find some engineer who could mill down the grooves on a set of Hogan Magnum Plus iron heads I have (I have a complete set of Magnum Plus irons that was my first non-retail set of clubs). It's be fun.....

[Hickory4ever]

2 hours ago, bcstones said:

(chuckling here) No problem...however I wonder if perhaps those "smoothies from before 1900" might have a multitude of factors.

Maltby's 1st edition of his club design/fitting/repair was published in '74 & no mention of what I paraphrased, the 2d edition published in '82 does (it was in an appendix about some of the myths of club design). I'm guessing here, but it seems logical that Maltby probably designed & had his regular set of 'grooved' irons made to his specs, especially to lie & loft...so when he designed & had a 'grooveless" set made (some 7 -8 decades after the 19th century), it would be to those same specs...which would make a comparison more accurate.

But that's just a guess....I would love to find some engineer who could mill down the grooves on a set of Hogan Magnum Plus iron heads I have (I have a complete set of Magnum Plus irons that was my first non-retail set of clubs). It's be fun.....

I have made quite a number of comparisons with my Tom Stewarts from pre 1900 (smooth faced) and their post 1900 versions (with grooves) and there is a big difference in spin. It is the primary reason that smooth faced clubs went the way of the dodo. 
 

[NRJyzr]

47 minutes ago, Hickory4ever said:

I have made quite a number of comparisons with my Tom Stewarts from pre 1900 (smooth faced) and their post 1900 versions (with grooves) and there is a big difference in spin. It is the primary reason that smooth faced clubs went the way of the dodo. 
 

 

Are you talking about overall performance, or clean, bare, lies?  When impediments are present, grooves are doing their thing.  Clean lies, they make no difference.

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

10 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Are you talking about overall performance, or clean, bare, lies?  When impediments are present, grooves are doing their thing.  Clean lies, they make no difference.

I recall reading about (not actually reading because I don't speak Swedish) a study undertaken at Umea University, way north of Stockholm, which stated just what you are saying, given a clean lie and accurate ball striking, grooves made no difference to spin. Pehr Thermaenius from Stockholm and journalist for Svenska Industrie Dagblatt and hickory guru of the 1990s- early 2000s, brought this to my attention.

[bcstones]

On 6/17/2023 at 4:19 PM, Hickory4ever said:

I have made quite a number of comparisons with my Tom Stewarts from pre 1900 (smooth faced) and their post 1900 versions (with grooves) and there is a big difference in spin. It is the primary reason that smooth faced clubs went the way of the dodo. 
 

Aren't you comparing late 19th century hickory shaft clubs to early 20th century hickory shaft clubs...weren't many club heads marked "hand forged", wouldn't that perhaps make it difficult to match one head perfectly to another from the same era, much less a later? 

 

Just checked on some hickory shafts, didn't see many grooved ones...there were punch dots, small line punched, even some that were both lines & dots....makes me wonder what they were for. 

All I'm saying about Maltby is that, 60 to 100 years after Tom Stewart clubs, as a club designer, he also had the facilities to exactly match a grooveless set of irons to his normal clubs - same length, same loft, same lie, same swing weight. Then he went out & played them exclusively for 2 years. All he said was that his handicap went from 6 to 5. (did find it interesting in light of what "The Aspidistra in the Hall" said above, Maltby did not mention specifics of any difference between hitting from rough, 1st 2nd or deep vs fairway)...And mentioned that people he played with, at first questioned but more or less quieted down after he played w/them.
I'm including a couple of shots from Maltby's club fitting/repair book...interesting read. At least I hope it comes thru as readable.

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy the Game!

Edited June 19, 2023 by bcstones